1. All parties drew my attention to clause 22.04 of the planning scheme setting out neighbourhood character policy. This policy references the relevant Darebin Neighbourhood Character Study 2007 and includes the area within Precinct G3.
2. Relevantly, the preferred future character for this area includes:
   • retaining and enhancing the established residential character of the area;
   • new development via a combination of smaller scale dwellings, units and townhouses[2];
   • new dwellings of contemporary design while reflecting predominant building materials, colours and forms; and
   • new development with front and side setbacks consistent with the area with adequate garden areas around buildings for planting of substantial vegetation.
3. I accept the responsible authority's submission that the predominant scale of the immediate area is predominantly single storey. In this context, while there is scope for double storey development, sensitive siting and design is the key to respecting existing character.
4. In general, I regard the proposal as generally well mannered to neighbours. In this regard, it avoids building to property boundaries, proposes single storey form towards the rear of the site and adopts reasonably generous side setbacks adjacent to more sensitive areas of adjoining properties. The rear gardens of the two adjoining properties are extremely sizeable and development will sit as single storey forms to the rear of the site, abutting structures such as sheds and garages particularly in the case of No. 87.
5. A number of positive aspects of the proposal were pointed out by Mr Mackenzie. Key components include:
   • the single driveway access and concealment of garages from the street;
   • the retention of the existing low front fence allowing views into the front garden setback together with the provision of one substantial and another supplementary landscape area within that part of the site;
   • the single storey form towards the rear of the site and the obvious confinement and centralisation of upper level building footprints for the two front dwellings;
   • compliance with ResCode setbacks, particularly the dominant minimum 3 metre western side setback and minimum 5 metre eastern side setback providing for adequate levels of separation from adjoining properties;
   • the maximum 7.6 metre height to top of ridge, decreasing towards the rear of the site;
   • the reasonable dimensions of secluded private open space for each unit and access via a living area. They provide opportunities for the planting of small trees and shrubs in addition to other vegetation while leaving a compact area for entertaining; and
   • the design and materials of the dwellings reflective of emerging medium density housing designs whilst retaining pitched roof forms.
6. From my perspective, the more challenging issues are whether the character setting can sustain two double storey dwellings towards the front of the site and whether the attached built form running for the length of just over 37 metres along the site is acceptable.
7. It seems that virtually all new development in Vigeons Street and surrounding streets consists of either three or four townhouses. Such development is emerging as a notable alternative pattern of development interspersed between original housing stock, such as further east along Vigneons Street. There are also numerous examples in adjoining Miranda Road and Hickford Street.
8. In nearly all new unit development, built form is attached for the full length of the site, excluding the front setback. This is also a pattern of development evident in older villa unit housing in the immediate area. This leads me to conclude that, in so far as medium density housing is concerned, the layout of attached building forms at least across ground level is already well represented in the broader area. Further, the open school grounds opposite are not particularly sensitive in built form terms and provide an additional opportunity to reinforce this emerging neighbourhood character.
9. I make this finding with one qualification. Having had the benefit of observing the relationship between numerous four unit developments and existing housing stock in the nearby area, I consider that upper level development needs to be carefully sited and designed to avoid the appearance of excessive bulk to the low scale single storey existing housing stock. This is reflected in the decision guidelines for the character precinct seeking to maintain the predominant single storey scale of building frontages.
10. In my opinion, at the site's interfaces currently stand, there is inadequate separation between the upper levels of units 1 and 2. This will be particularly noticeable from oblique views, with the 1 metre separation leading to impressions of connected upper level forms from some vantage points. I consider that changes to the upper level floor plan are required to increase the separation between upper floor elements to a minimum of 3 metres to result in an acceptable separation of upper level built form, avoiding excessive visual bulk towards the front of the site. There is scope to rework the floor plan by the deletion of the retreat, without losing any bedrooms.
11. I do not consider that an additional 400mm setback of the upper level of unit 1 as proposed by the responsible authority's permit conditions is necessary. The wall face is already set some 2.6 metres behind the roof edge of the level below and provides sufficient articulation and avoids a 'boxy' presentation to the street.
12. In terms of landscape opportunities, I have already addressed the sizeable front garden, even by traditional standards and the adequate opportunities provided by the western courtyards. The rear unit is provided with a reasonably large area (albeit south facing) at the back of the property but also has the benefit of an additional secluded private open space area to the west. The application proposes low level landscaping along much of the shared driveway and a landscape area of acceptable dimensions in front of units 2 and 3 beside the driveway.
13. The only part of the site that does not provide an opportunity for landscaping is through the centre. This is a product of the lengthy attached building form depicted in the application. Would the combination of these features constitute an acceptable response to neighbourhood character?
14. I find that the layout and dimensions of areas for landscaping within this proposal are entirely consistent with landscaping opportunities provided by emerging multi unit development in terms of the dimensions of these areas. In reality, the difference between well landscaped unit sites and poorly landscaped ones in this area comes down to the species selection and densities of planting as well as the maintenance regime of occupiers.

1. The responsible authority was concerned with the potential for overlooking from ground floor windows of proposed dwellings 2, 3 and 4 to the property to the west. The current boundary fence is 1.6 metres high but is in extremely poor condition. There are a number of shallow cuts to the site shown on the elevation plan and it appears that the boundary fence would come just under 1.7 metres above finished floor level along those windows.
2. I agree with Mr Nickas that this deficiency can be readily addressed to the standard recommended by ResCode by a self-supporting trellis or alternatively by replacing the boundary fence along that side with a taller fence. The permit applicant agreed to a condition reflecting the former option.
3. An opportunity for overlooking is generated by the west facing second bedroom of unit 1. The responsible authority considered that this window does not require screening given its separation distance from habitable or secluded parts of the adjoining property. I agree. The majority of the outlook from this window would be to the adjoining driveway and open front garden.
4. The permit applicant agreed to screen or raise sill levels of windows to the retreat and bedroom 1 of unit 2 as an "agreed concession" to the neighbour to the east. For the record, I note that these windows are more than 12 metres from habitable room windows of that property given the two intervening driveways so this treatment would not technically have been required to comply with the relevant ResCode standard.

1. Mr Lepore submitted that the proposal did not provide adequate levels of on-site parking in view of parking pressures generated by the school opposite. This concern was echoed by Mr Cristou.
2. I agree with the responsible authority's assessment that the proposal provides adequate levels of parking to satisfy the relevant ResCode standard, at a rate of one car space per two bedroom unit. In general, garages and accessways have been well designed to be functional and not obtrusive in the streetscape. ResCode would only require visitor parking for five units or more, at a rate of one space per five apartments. This is not triggered by the current application.
3. There will no doubt be higher parking demand in the immediate area around school pick up and drop off times. However, these are not times that are known to coincide with peak visitor parking times for multi unit development in suburban Melbourne - most commonly evenings and weekends. At that time, I consider that there is likely to be ample visitor parking either in the immediate area or within walking distance, particularly given the absence of on-street parking restrictions.
4. Similarly, traffic congestion will be part and parcel of this neighbourhood around school pick up and drop off times. At those times, I do not consider that the likely traffic movements associated with the proposed additional three dwellings on the land would perceptibly add to this congestion. There was no suggestion that the local road network was struggling at other times, and the additional traffic movements can readily be absorbed without difficulty.[3]

1. Having regard to the site's setting and opportunities opposite the school, I support the development of the land for four attached units. I consider that the design of the upper level of unit 2 should be modified to provide increased spacing around second storey elements towards the street frontage.
2. The development is appropriately designed to respond to the emerging character of the neighbourhood and provides adequate landscaping opportunities. Overlooking has been addressed by agreement between the parties, reflected in permit conditions. The proposal warrants approval for the reasons above.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (identified as drawing numbersTP-04 and TP-05, prepared by Ikonomidis Reid and dated September 09) but modified to show:

1. Modification to the upper level of unit 2 to increase the setback between the northern wall and the upper level southern wall of unit 1 to a minimum of 3 metres, with ancillary changes to the internal floor plan. Side setbacks must not be increased at either level. 2. A maximum width of 3 metres for the vehicle accessway, other than at vehicle turning areas (excess area to the sides of the accessway are to be filled with landscaping).

1. Pedestrian access doors to garages reversed so that they do not open onto the vehicle parking area.

1. A self-supporting trellis or similar screening device (maximum 25% openings or solid) to an overall height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level next to the existing fence on the western boundary of the secluded private open spaces of units 2, 3 and 4 or replacement of the boundary fence with a 1.8 metre high fence for the full length of the site. 2. Views from the first floor, east facing retreat and bedroom window of unit 2 screened by the provision of either: * - fixed external screens to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level. The screening must be no more than 25% transparent; * - fixed obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level; or * - sill heights a minimum of 1.7 metres above finished floor level. 3. A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 5 of this Permit. 4. Any modifications required to limit stormwater discharge from the site to not more than 0.35 coefficient of run off with a return period of one in ten years (refer to Condition 10 of this Permit).

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of this Permit.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

2. Prior to the issue of a building permit for any building or any works authorised by this permit, a development levy must be paid to Darebin City Council. The amount of the development levy for each charge unit must be calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Development Contribution Plan Overlay.

3. Before buildings and works start, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must incorporate:

1. details of all existing trees to be retained and all existing trees to be removed, including overhanging trees on adjoining properties. The genus, species, height and spread of all trees must be specified 2. a planting schedule of proposed vegetation detailing the botanical name, common name, size at maturity and quantities of all plants;

1. details of all surfaces including lawns, mulched garden beds and hard paving (such as asphalt, concrete, brick or gravel)

1. all constructed items including retaining walls, letter boxes, garbage bin receptacles, outdoor furniture, lighting, clotheslines etc 2. edge treatment between grass (lawn) and garden beds 3. an outline of the approved building/s including the location of entry doors, windows, gates and fences. An outline of buildings on adjoining land, including the location of windows and doors which face the subject site must also be shown 4. the location of both existing and proposed overhead and underground services. Conflicts of such services with the existing and proposed planting must be avoided 5. clear graphics identifying trees (deciduous and evergreen), shrubs, groundcovers and climbers 6. a scale, North Point and appropriate legend

The species of all proposed plants selected must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority before the development is occupied and/or the use starts or at such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

No later than seven (7) days after the completion of the landscaping, the permit holder must advise Council, in writing, that the landscaping has been completed.

The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must be confirmed. The confirmation of the ground floor level must take place no later than at the time of the inspection of the subfloor of the development required under the Building Act 1993 and the Building Regulations 2006. This confirmation must be in the form of a report from a licensed land surveyor and must be submitted to the Responsible Authority no later than 7 days from the date of the sub-floor inspection.

Before the dwellings are occupied, an automatic external lighting system capable of illuminating the entry to each unit, and all pedestrian walkways must be provided on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The external lighting must be designed, baffled and/or located to ensure that no unreasonable loss of amenity is caused to adjoining and nearby land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The land must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Stormwater discharge from the property must be limited to not more than 0.35 coefficient of run off with a return period of 1 in 10 years. Before the plans required by Condition 1 of this Permit are endorsed, written documentation demonstrating the development's compliance with this condition must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Provision must be made on the land for letter boxes and receptacles for newspapers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Before occupation of the development, areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:

1. constructed; 2. properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.

1. All privacy screening measures shown on the endorsed plans along the buildings must be fixed and permanent in line with the requirements of clause 55.04-6 of the Darebin Planning Scheme to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. This Permit will expire if:
   1. The development does not start within three (3) years from the date of this Permit; or
   2. The development is not completed within five (5) years of the date of this Permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.

[1] Including a number of examples photographed by Mr Mackenzie.

[2] Referring to all areas other than the east of the precinct.

[3] This finding is generally consistent with the responsible authority's traffic engineering assessment of the proposal.